Tweet
The Economist
October 20, 2007
U.S. Edition
A resolution too far;
Turkey and Armenia
The fallout in Turkey from a congressional vote in America
A congressional vote in Washington that could jeopardise Turkey's
path westwards
THE Turks are a proud, prickly people, easily offended by criticism.
That much is clear from the row over a resolution, passed by a
committee of the United States House of Representatives on October
10th, calling the slaughter of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915
genocide. The full House has yet to vote on the resolution. But
Turkey has reacted angrily, recalling its ambassador. It is talking
of cutting military ties and even denying the Americans use of the
Incirlik airbase that is vital for the supply of their troops in Iraq
(see pages 33-35).
As such threats demonstrate, Turkey is not just an angry ally. It is
also a vital one, with a population of 75m and the world's
19th-biggest economy. It is a strategically important hinge between
Europe and Asia; it has the biggest army in NATO after America's; it
forms a crucial energy corridor to the West; and it borders on such
awkward places as Iran and Syria as well as Iraq. Moreover, it is a
rare example in the Muslim world of a lively, secular democracy. Yet
internal tensions are exacerbated when clumsy outsiders intervene.
This year has seen a series of clashes between the army and
secularists on one side and the mildly Islamist Justice and
Development (AK) government led by Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the other,
culminating in a big AK win in the election in July. Mr Erdogan is
trying manfully to keep Turkey on the path towards membership of the
European Union, even though many Europeans have become openly
hostile. He also wants to preserve good relations with America
despite renewed fighting with guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers'
Party (PKK), some based in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq. This
is a bad moment for America to pick a fight over something that
happened 90 years ago, before modern Turkey even existed.
That is not to deny it is a good idea for countries to face up to
their past, especially when it was as violent as that of the Ottomans
in the early 20th century. Germany has been admirably open about
admitting the sins of the Nazi period; Japan has been less candid. It
would be good for modern, democratic Turkey to come to terms with the
terrible treatment of Armenians in the first world war (as also, in
later times, of other minorities, including Greeks, Alevis and
Kurds). In recent years, there have been encouraging signs: a few
historians' conferences, an attempt to improve relations with
Armenia, growing acceptance of the Kurdish language and occasional
talk of amending Article 301 of the penal code. This makes "insulting
Turkishness" a criminal offence and is used to shut down discussion
of the Armenian genocide.
But the adoption of a highly political resolution in America's
Congress is the worst possible way to encourage more steps in the
right direction. Rather, it would serve only to fan the flames of
Turkish nationalism and leave liberals within Turkey who want more
open debate about the past even more exposed. Those in Congress who
are pushing this resolution have little interest in Turkey or even
Armenia, but a lot in the wealthy Armenian-American constituents who
are lobbying them. It is telling that many Turkish Armenians, and
even the Patriarch of the Armenian church of Istanbul, have not
welcomed the House resolution.
Recognising the damaging repercussions in Turkey as well as for
Turkish-American relations, the Bush administration has been fighting
to stop the resolution's passage. It has mustered all eight living
former secretaries of state, both Democrat and Republican, to argue
against it. This is testimony to the strategic importance of Turkey.
But it also reflects the especially sensitive time. This week the
Turkish parliament gave its approval for a possible cross-border
military incursion into northern Iraq to root out PKK terrorists
based there.
That would be another blunder. The Turks' frustration over northern
Iraq is understandable. In the past two weeks alone, some 20 Turkish
soldiers have been killed by the PKK. Repeated requests to the Iraqis
and local Kurdish authorities to clamp down on the group have been
ignored. Yet an invasion would not only upset the most stable region
of Iraq but also be unlikely to work, as even some Turkish generals
recognise. It would be better for the Americans to do more to counter
the PKK in northern Iraq - and for Turkey to renew its earlier efforts
to improve the lot of Kurds in its south-east.
Keeping Turkey on its pro-Western course is vital, not just for Iraq,
but for the sake of all Turks, including the country's own big
Kurdish population. Recent rows have helped to turn Turkish public
opinion sharply against both the European Union and the United
States, a situation that countries such as Iran and Russia are all
too ready to exploit. Pressure to scrap Article 301 and allow open
debate in Turkey should continue. But the House resolution is not the
way to do it.
October 20, 2007
U.S. Edition
A resolution too far;
Turkey and Armenia
The fallout in Turkey from a congressional vote in America
A congressional vote in Washington that could jeopardise Turkey's
path westwards
THE Turks are a proud, prickly people, easily offended by criticism.
That much is clear from the row over a resolution, passed by a
committee of the United States House of Representatives on October
10th, calling the slaughter of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915
genocide. The full House has yet to vote on the resolution. But
Turkey has reacted angrily, recalling its ambassador. It is talking
of cutting military ties and even denying the Americans use of the
Incirlik airbase that is vital for the supply of their troops in Iraq
(see pages 33-35).
As such threats demonstrate, Turkey is not just an angry ally. It is
also a vital one, with a population of 75m and the world's
19th-biggest economy. It is a strategically important hinge between
Europe and Asia; it has the biggest army in NATO after America's; it
forms a crucial energy corridor to the West; and it borders on such
awkward places as Iran and Syria as well as Iraq. Moreover, it is a
rare example in the Muslim world of a lively, secular democracy. Yet
internal tensions are exacerbated when clumsy outsiders intervene.
This year has seen a series of clashes between the army and
secularists on one side and the mildly Islamist Justice and
Development (AK) government led by Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the other,
culminating in a big AK win in the election in July. Mr Erdogan is
trying manfully to keep Turkey on the path towards membership of the
European Union, even though many Europeans have become openly
hostile. He also wants to preserve good relations with America
despite renewed fighting with guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers'
Party (PKK), some based in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq. This
is a bad moment for America to pick a fight over something that
happened 90 years ago, before modern Turkey even existed.
That is not to deny it is a good idea for countries to face up to
their past, especially when it was as violent as that of the Ottomans
in the early 20th century. Germany has been admirably open about
admitting the sins of the Nazi period; Japan has been less candid. It
would be good for modern, democratic Turkey to come to terms with the
terrible treatment of Armenians in the first world war (as also, in
later times, of other minorities, including Greeks, Alevis and
Kurds). In recent years, there have been encouraging signs: a few
historians' conferences, an attempt to improve relations with
Armenia, growing acceptance of the Kurdish language and occasional
talk of amending Article 301 of the penal code. This makes "insulting
Turkishness" a criminal offence and is used to shut down discussion
of the Armenian genocide.
But the adoption of a highly political resolution in America's
Congress is the worst possible way to encourage more steps in the
right direction. Rather, it would serve only to fan the flames of
Turkish nationalism and leave liberals within Turkey who want more
open debate about the past even more exposed. Those in Congress who
are pushing this resolution have little interest in Turkey or even
Armenia, but a lot in the wealthy Armenian-American constituents who
are lobbying them. It is telling that many Turkish Armenians, and
even the Patriarch of the Armenian church of Istanbul, have not
welcomed the House resolution.
Recognising the damaging repercussions in Turkey as well as for
Turkish-American relations, the Bush administration has been fighting
to stop the resolution's passage. It has mustered all eight living
former secretaries of state, both Democrat and Republican, to argue
against it. This is testimony to the strategic importance of Turkey.
But it also reflects the especially sensitive time. This week the
Turkish parliament gave its approval for a possible cross-border
military incursion into northern Iraq to root out PKK terrorists
based there.
That would be another blunder. The Turks' frustration over northern
Iraq is understandable. In the past two weeks alone, some 20 Turkish
soldiers have been killed by the PKK. Repeated requests to the Iraqis
and local Kurdish authorities to clamp down on the group have been
ignored. Yet an invasion would not only upset the most stable region
of Iraq but also be unlikely to work, as even some Turkish generals
recognise. It would be better for the Americans to do more to counter
the PKK in northern Iraq - and for Turkey to renew its earlier efforts
to improve the lot of Kurds in its south-east.
Keeping Turkey on its pro-Western course is vital, not just for Iraq,
but for the sake of all Turks, including the country's own big
Kurdish population. Recent rows have helped to turn Turkish public
opinion sharply against both the European Union and the United
States, a situation that countries such as Iran and Russia are all
too ready to exploit. Pressure to scrap Article 301 and allow open
debate in Turkey should continue. But the House resolution is not the
way to do it.